to ill-treatment at the hands of State agents. They also alleged that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Alleged violation of Article 3 in respect of Lema Dikayev
1. The parties' submissions
142. The applicants of Lema Dikayev's family alleged that their relative Lema Dikayev had been ill-treated by State agents when he was taken away and subsequently detained. His beating had been witnessed by several applicants and they had informed the investigation about it but the authorities had failed to investigate these allegations. In support of their allegations the applicants referred to their witness statements and a number of other cases relating to disappearances in Chechnya and examined by the Court.
143. The Government disagreed with these allegations and submitted that the investigation had not established that Lema Dikayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The Court's assessment
(a) Admissibility
144. The Court notes that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
(b) Merits
145. In so far as the applicants complained of alleged ill-treatment of Lema Dikayev upon and after his apprehension, the Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof " beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 161).
146. The Court reiterates that "where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to 'secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention', requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
i. The alleged ill-treatment
147. In so far as the complaint concerns the ill-treatment Lema Dikayev was allegedly subjected to during his detention, the Court notes that it has found that he was detained on 6 July 2002 by State agents. It has also found that, in view of all the known circumstances, he can be presumed dead and that the responsibility for his death lies with the State authorities (see paragraph 132 above). However, the exact way in which he died has not been established. The Court note that the applicants' allegation of Lema Dikayev's ill-treatment in detention is not supported by appropriate evidence. The applicants' reference to other cases in which abducted persons were ill-treated during the detention does not allow the Court to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant's relative was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
148. In so far as the complaint concerns the ill-treatment Lema Dikayev was allegedly subjected to during his abduction, the Court observes that the members of his family witnessed the abduction and saw the servicemen kicking him and beating him with rifle butts (see paragr
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 26 27 28
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
